I'm not sure left and right really conveying any true meaning. Certainly its true that you can only put a cigarette paper between National Socialism and Communism. If that's what you mean by false dichotomy I agree.

There's certainly a current and modern false dichotomy between austerity and 'growth'.Whereby 'growth' is code for increased government spending, putting more money in the pockets of bankers and impoverishing pensioners and savers through QE.

I'm just saying that words like "socialism" are often used in a redundant and hyperbolic way. Unless we decide to reject the Third Way, then it might be more relevant.

Originally Posted by judoka_uk

Yes, but your parents made the choice to buy the land and build a house on it. They could have bought an already built house instead.

However, for whatever reasons they chose to buy their own land, get planning permission, build their own house etc... Personally I think good on them and I would like to buy my own land and build my own house when I'm of the right age and have the money, but still... The hardship of living off the grid whilst the house was built was entirely voluntary.

The point I was making was that it's possible to be happy as long as certain conditions are met. I just wasn't sure exactly what conditions you were referring to. It should have been obvious you were talking about the UK before industrialisation.

One thing that is interesting as an outside observer from an ostensibly socialist country (NZ) is that the greatest infringements on individual rights in the US seem to have come from the Republicans, yet it is always the Republican party that is seen as pro-individual rights. Actually that doesn't make any sense at all, given that they are also anti individual rights such as, say, getting married to who you want to. Hmmm. So it's the left wing that Americans worry about taking away their rights?....

I would put marriage under the civil right category not individual right. A lot of stuff associated with marriage, living together, freely associating together, privacy are individual rights. So I see consistency there. (not an opinion on policy just an observation that it is a civil right) The individual rights that some dems seem willing to mess with are the right to own and carry a weapon, the right to spend money on speech, the right to own and control property. Dems do see more willing to make sure people benefit from what our society produces and accomplishes. Healthcare being the big one. Once again a civil right though.

Red scares and attempts by reds to take over US both predate cable television...

He wasn't making a point about history; he was speaking about the present situation. I could list publishers of newspapers whose wares might be avoided in the same course, but it looks like newspapers have lost a great deal of relevance.

I suspect the point he was implying is that observable reality doesn't engender such concerns, leading one to suspect why such talk dominates political discourse in this country.

Socialism only exists in a handful of countries (N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuala), while Welfare States still exists all over the world (Canada, Britain, Nordic countries etc). And Neither of these two systems has a preference to democratic/monarchic/dictatorial governments. Economic Orientations and Methods for deciding leadership are on two different axis'. You can have Socialist Democracies (Venezuala) and you can have Capitalist Dictators (Middle-Eastern monarchies)

Nothing Obama has done is even close to Socialism. In ANY FORM. It's barely even a step back towards a Welfare State. Making it mandatory that everyone purchase health insurance from private insurance companies is not the same as a state run healthcare system (Welfare State) or the nationalization of all Health Care companies (Socialism).

Pro and con regarding socialism is relevant to today. The historical issues lead right to today. Also the tension of civil rights and individual rights still matter very much.

Yes, but framing it a certain way can derail the discussion.

For example, I'm guessing you're in favour of progressive taxes. But that's "socialist", so it must be evil. We need to abolish progressive taxes and instead only have a consumption based tax.

The discussion is now about pure idealism rather than making adjustments to a moderate system based on the Third Way ("a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies"). It was never all-or-nothing in the first place, but sometimes it ends up being debated that way.

Socialism only exists in a handful of countries (N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuala), while Welfare States still exists all over the world (Canada, Britain, Nordic countries etc). And Neither of these two systems has a preference to democratic/monarchic/dictatorial governments. Economic Orientations and Methods for deciding leadership are on two different axis'. You can have Socialist Democracies (Venezuala) and you can have Capitalist Dictators (Middle-Eastern monarchies)

Nothing Obama has done is even close to Socialism. In ANY FORM. It's barely even a step back towards a Welfare State. Making it mandatory that everyone purchase health insurance from private insurance companies is not the same as a state run healthcare system (Welfare State) or the nationalization of all Health Care companies (Socialism).

AH, but you forget the slippery slope and the boiling frog. That's how the reds get you.